Time Period for the Review of Plans

What we asked

Consultation Question 3 re: a specific time period for the
review of plans

Q3: The 2015 Act requires
CPPs to
keep under review the question of whether it is making progress in
the achievement of each local outcome in their
LOIP and
locality plan(s).
CPPs
must from time to time review their
LOIP and
locality plan(s) under review, and to revise them where
appropriate. Even with this, do you think the statutory guidance
should require
CPPs to
review and if necessary revise their plans after a specific period
of time in every case? If so, what should that specific period
be?

Yes ◘ No ◘

Please explain why.

Context

49. The 2015 Act states in section 7 that each
CPP
"must from time to time review the local outcomes improvement
plan". Section 11 places an equivalent duty on
CPPs for
their locality plans.

50. The draft guidance makes clear that "the
CPP must
ensure that its
LOIP
remains up to date and appropriate for delivering improvement on
themes which reflect local needs, circumstances and aspirations"
(paragraph 147 refers). Paragraph 170 states the same for locality
plans and emphasises the import of community participation
throughout community planning by stating that having reviewed the
locality plan the "
CPP may
then revise the locality plan, where it and the community bodies
consider this appropriate".

51. Question 3 in the consultation attempted to ascertain
respondents views as to whether there was a need for Scottish
Government to specify a set period of time for review and if so
what it should be and why.

Overall views

Q3 respondents views: review of plans

52. 75 respondents provided a yes/no response to this question.
39 respondents replied yes with 36 respondents replying no. 17
respondents did not reply to the yes /no component of the question.
4 of the 17 respondents who did not indicate a preference included
comments in the explanatory section below the question.

53. 41 respondents indicated that decisions on timescale should
be flexible enough to allow for local circumstances and be locally
determined. Hence there is a small majority both for a specific
time period to be placed in guidance and, conversely, local
determination of what that time period should be.

Themes

54. Preferred approaches which respondents identified included
nationally set timescales, locally determined periods and an upper
limit or range within which
CPPs
must undertake their review. Some respondents expressed reasons for
supporting more than one of these differing approaches.

Support for nationally set timeframe within which
CPPs
must review their plans

55. Those respondents who expressed a preference for a
nationally set timescale proposed a wide variety of options for
revision of local outcomes improvement plans and locality plans.
These varied, with no clear consensus, from continuous on-going
review, through annually, bi -annually, every 3 years, between 3
and 5 years, 4 to 6 years and beyond.

56. A third sector respondent considered that consistency of
review for all
CPPs
would support performance benchmarking with an individual
respondent expressing that communities want to be able to "compare
performance and ranking of their
CPP
against others". This view was supported by some
NHS and public
bodies, particularly for those who participate in multiple
CPPs who
favoured, what they considered to be, a consistency of
approach.

57. Some Local Authority and Community Planning Partnership
respondents considered it to be helpful if the review timetable for
the local outcomes improvement plan was aligned to local election
cycles, which the local authority considered may aid the
"consistency for focus at that strategic level". A
CPP
represented a widely held view that it would be helpful to align
with review periods for partners' strategic plans and strategy
cycles.

Support for timescales to review plans to be locally
determined

58. 41 respondents indicated a preference for local
determination of review timeframes. A key reason given was to
enable
CPPs to
align and link timeframes for
LOIPs
and locality plans with those applying to plans for community
justice, integrated joint board strategic plans, children's
services plans, spatial planning,
etc. As one
CPP
respondent replied "flexibility allows
CPPs to
align their local outcome plans with existing local planning cycles
and structures, facilitating a streamlined approach which best
suits local need."

59. A Public Body, who replied no, simply commented that "if
time periods are to be set then it would be helpful to align with
other nationally required timeframes".

60. A small number of respondents from across categories
considered that guidance could set out the expectation that
CPPs
should provide assurance that a review timescale and process is in
place and carried out, without that timescale being prescribed
nationally. This was articulated by a
CPP
respondent who recommended that a "requirement was placed on the
CPP to
set appropriate timescales….The rationale for these
timescales to be clear and transparent" and by a Local Authority
respondent who considered that whilst it was for the
CPP to
determine any review timetable locally, that this review commitment
should be made public to their local communities.

61. Other Community Planning Partnership respondents replied
that there are already well-established reporting and review
processes for
CPPs and
that
CPPs
should "be given flexibility to set review periods based on their
own knowledge and understanding" in response to local
circumstances. A third sector respondent noted that "plans should
be flexible with reviews set accordingly that suit local conditions
and circumstances". This appears to echo earlier comments about
potential contradiction between local community empowerment with
common nationally set measures or conditions.

62. The range of local conditions and circumstances was also
given as a reason for local determination by a local authority who
replied no to a specified nationally set timeframe summarised thus
"Given that
CPPs
have different structures for delivery it would be difficult to set
a time for review and revision that would suit everyone". Other
CPP
responses noted the challenge of ensuring synergy in partners'
interactions with other strategic plans.

Support for upper limit or range

63. A number of respondents including
CPPs,
local authorities, third sector and other public bodies proposed a
range or upper limit to the timeframe with local determination
within these parameters, to provide a degree of flexibility to
enable a local response to changing local circumstances.

64. A local authority who responded no explained that a
"specified time period for review may potentially lead to the
establishment of a bureaucratic planning cycle". This supported the
views of a small number of others who expressed that it was more
important to ensure that plans lead to improvement and that what is
being reviewed is meaningful and transparent for stakeholders and
communities.